Automation / FMS use at your company

[murfdawg998]

Just like Global guys landing on the short runway at Westchester.

Didn't hear about that one! Wow

 

[pilotjc]

Just like Global guys landing on the short runway at Westchester.

"Its for you"

Good to see you in on what is likely the dumbest pilot web board thread in a long time.

Just like Falcon 7X guys landing on a snow covered downhill runway at Westchester! At night.

Glad to see you stirring the pot and having fun also.

You missed a good day on Saturday. It was good to see some of the guys.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Just like Falcon 7X guys landing on a snow covered downhill runway at Westchester! At night.

Glad to see you stirring the pot and having fun also.

You missed a good day on Saturday. It was good to see some of the guys.

I dont do the night trips, against my SOPs. Not approved. Downhill windy snow and ice with no TR's??...leave it to the old fellas, they got nothing to lose...:blush:

I heard it was a real good time, hope to catch up soon!

 

[bbwest]

You dont need to be in a 777 to do an FMS overlay approach. You can do it in almost any aircraft with an fms.

FMS goes out, shooting an ndb at night in bad wx?? Come on holmes, why didnt you add a meteor shower and a 4000' runway to your less than plausible example?

I could not agree more with the fact that we in the corporate world will see many more Non Precis Appchs than 121 guys. I will say again though, not my idea not my data. Read the 2 pages on it in Book 1 of the Jepps. Why do you think they went to all the trouble to add VNAV glideslope data to so many(nearly ALL) Non Precis Appchs in Jepps?

Way off track here. In the face of the personal attacks, I will reiterate, there is a best and safest way to do almost all we do in the cockpit. None of which was figured out by me. Meanwhile I have heard nothing to lead me to believe much different than what I thought when I started this which is pretty much summed up in double psych's post.

The best way, the most logical way, the way with some science behind it - thats my favorite way. What I "like" or "I've always done it that way" is for the less than professionals in this business.

 

[ttflyer]

The best way, the most logical way, the way with some science behind it - thats my favorite way. What I "like" or "I've always done it that way" is for the less than professionals in this business.

Not to beat a dead horse here, but if that were true, the airlines would not be allowed to have different procedures. They would all have exactly the same SOPs which would mandated by the FAA. But they don't. Airlines all have different SOPs approved by different POIs. Callouts, procedures and who does what when in the cockpit can very widely from carrier to carrier. There is certainly no consensus - logical, scientific or otherwise - on the "best" way to do everything in the cockpit... There are several things which we know are wrong, but that is very different from saying there is only one "right" way.

 

[matchthehatch]

Having experience with 121 operations at both regional and majors, part 91K and 135 operations, and currently corporate operations, I feel qualified to draw comparisons. I’ve seen 121 procedures that rely on the “more is better” mentality, which I believe to be unsafe. I’ve seen corporate departments whose pilots make up procedures as they go. There’s nothing safe about that. While one may not be better than the other in terms of safety and efficiency, I felt much safer at least having a set of standardized procedures. G200, if you’ve never seen poorly standardized operations at your present and previous departments, then you are very fortunate, and probably an exception rather than the norm in the corporate world.
To continue to utilize procedures just because “that’s the way we’ve always done it” is short-sighted and just plain lazy. While I believe that the adage “If it aint broke, don’t fix it” often holds true, part of our jobs as professional pilots is to constantly evaluate the procedures that we use and question their efficacy.
Bbwest, while I commend you for trying to make significant changes that obviously need to be made, it sounds like your problems are rooted in the personalities of your pilots. I happen to be very fortunate to work with pilots who genuinely care about improving our operations, are flexible enough to change when needed, humble enough to admit being wrong, and interested in doing things “the right way” for our department. I wish you the best.

 

[LegacyDriver]

Agree with Boiler's first post with the addition: Initiated Transfer. Doing so letss you check your inputs and allows a "do over" if you finger fire the box. It is only a couple extra button presses but worth it.

 

[LegacyDriver]

Hey G200... Embraer Lineage Captain? Glad to see you finally stepped up to a *real* airplane. (That title made me laugh, "Colonel.") Haha!

 

[ksu_aviator]

You dont need to be in a 777 to do an FMS overlay approach. You can do it in almost any aircraft with an fms.

Who ever said you did?

FMS goes out, shooting an ndb at night in bad wx?? Come on holmes, why didnt you add a meteor shower and a 4000' runway to your less than plausible example?

Because that isn't the way it happened for me. I was shooting the RNAV 33 into UVA when the unit went black. We continued to the NDB, did the procedure turn and shot the approach green source, at night near minimums. But I've also lost the FMS departing out of Eagle on an unforecast RAIM issue (too low to pick up enough VORs for reliable navigation) and I've had to abandon the FMS because the FO screwed it up. My point is, that that FMS is not some PFM box that you should program and rely on as if it will never fail. Your argument seems to be based on the idea that that box (that is probably still running Fortran) is so f'n smart that it will never lead you astray. All I'm saying is, don't be so naive and plan for the day when it will fail.

I could not agree more with the fact that we in the corporate world will see many more Non Precis Appchs than 121 guys. I will say again though, not my idea not my data. Read the 2 pages on it in Book 1 of the Jepps. Why do you think they went to all the trouble to add VNAV glideslope data to so many(nearly ALL) Non Precis Appchs in Jepps?

Way off track here. In the face of the personal attacks, I will reiterate, there is a best and safest way to do almost all we do in the cockpit. None of which was figured out by me. Meanwhile I have heard nothing to lead me to believe much different than what I thought when I started this which is pretty much summed up in double psych's post.

The best way, the most logical way, the way with some science behind it - thats my favorite way. What I "like" or "I've always done it that way" is for the less than professionals in this business.

Agreed. But...don't rely on automation to the point of incompetence. Fly some VFR VOR approaches. Track an NDB from time to time. Build a hold in your head. Plan your own descent. The mental acuity that you'll gain from being able to throw everything out the window and fly your basic six will make you look even smarter than you think you are.

 

[satpak77]

This is an age old argument, or discussion. "How much automation to use" etc.

Personally, I hand fly until above 2000 FT AGL and don't bring up GPS/FMS NAV until I am on the route/SID/etc per old fashioned analog nav. If it agrees, I bring it up.

My area is surrounded by mountains so I don't need any GPS or FMS hiccups while I fly the supposedly-correct departure per the box.

On the arrival, I usually rely more heavily on GPS/FMS NAV and will commonly back up VOR approaches, ILS waypoints, etc, with the GPS.

At all times, GPS nav is backed up with VOR freqs and enroute course is monitored by PNF via putting the USA Today down and checking the chart....